Environmental Concerns Of The Energy Industry

Citizens of countries where fossil fuels are being utilized are concerned at the possible chance of global warming. So many greenhouse gases emitted, ice burgs and caps are shifting or melting, that population is beginning to worry about what is going to happen to the environment in the future if this source is kept being used. With nuclear energy we don’t have to worry about the environmental changes. Nuclear energy has

Firstly, the atomic incidents of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Russia are often mentioned as examples for nuclear plants being unsafe. In both cases failures of workers led to a meltdown in the reactors and increased radiation in the surrounding area (Henderson 12-17). And as the recent disaster in Japan shows, a nuclear crisis cannot only be caused by human mishaps, but also by unpredictable and untamable natural hazards. Consequently, nuclear crises cannot be predicted or prevented completely. Nuclear plants are, furthermore, considered uneconomical because in the eighties the construction costs of nuclear plants were underestimated and exceeded the estimation by $100 billion (Henderson 103). Therefore, the nuclear power opponents are arguing that nuclear power is burdening the American economy unnecessarily. According to the nuclear physicist Jeff Eerkens, antinuclear groups are also claiming that nuclear power is not necessary for the future since renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power will be providing sufficient energy for the United States, and are at the same time much cheaper than the costly nuclear power plants (Eerkens 20). Over all, opponents consider nuclear power to risky and inefficient to “deserve further support from U.S. taxpayers” (Henderson 104).

At the beginning of last year, I convinced my family to start using environmentally products, focusing on green technology. In order to apply environmental technology properly and effectively, I had to figure out what alternative forms of energy existed and how well they worked. This led to my questioning: what other forms of energy could the United States be pursuing to increase its production of electricity? In an effort to research different form of energy and their benefits and detriments, I read two articles: “A Letter to the Editor” by David Rockwood and “Why Uranium is the New Green” by William Sweet. In his letter, David Rockwood, a professional engineer, discusses the several inaccuracies and possible ramifications of wind power as a main source of electricity. Rockwood claims that wind power is unreliable because of flaws in its system and design, not to mention the detrimental environmental impact. Similarly, in his article William Sweet, a college graduate, talks about different ways to impose some kind of carbon regulation. Sweet compares nuclear and wind power to coal-burning power, remarking that nuclear and wind power technologies can make an immediate beneficial difference on greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the fact that Rockwood goes in depth on only wind power while Sweet talks about multiple sources of power, both of the articles made me think that the United States should pursue some other form of energy to increase its production of electricity.

The Alternative energy industry in the United States has been at a steady rate of growth for the past decade, however there is still controversy over the use of renewable energies, their impact on the economy, and their impact on the environment. As controversial as the topic is, the argument boils down to a moral need to support environmental regulations, and an economical need to sustain domestic growth in the Energy industry of the United States. Mainly, the question is can alternative energy effective replace fossil fuels? There are of course arguments for both sides of this question.

An example of the environmental success nuclear energy has provided is France in the 1970s and 1980s. The country switched from using fossil fuels and instead used nuclear energy to supply 78% of its electricity (see figure 3). This in turn lowered the country’s greenhouse emissions by approximately 2% each year since. No accidents have ever occurred at any of France's power plants (Biello, 2013).

The production of nuclear energy is not as safe and clean as some say that it is. The Oxford Research Group released a report providing evidence that supports this point. It is clear that nuclear power plants do not produce a lot of carbon dioxide when they operate, but it is the mining of uranium and the storing of waste that produces the carbon dioxide pollution.

With our modern technology, yes, we can burn our coal within the limits of the Clean Air Act” (Reagan,1980) and Reagans lack of policy regarding the environment while pushing for increased coal production seem to mirror his skepticism regarding the environmental issues of the time. The partisan nature of environmental policy spending can be shown most clearly when Reagan’s nonchalant approach to the environmental policy when they are compared to the new technologies that were put in to place during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. In an address to a joint session of congress in 1977, Carter outlined a national energy plan which included “We must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century” (Carter, 1977) and this included “In the long term, to develop renewable and essentially inexhaustible sources of energy for sustained economic growth” (Carter, 1977). This brings a different perspective to the policy changes that are now occurring in the government in a change from President Obama to President Trump. Just as Reagan followed Carter and the shift on environmental policy was moved from developing new technologies to returning to coal burning as a primary source of energy, the change from Obama’s policies to Trump’s may not be totally

Throughout this world, we use various equipment that need certain energy requirements in order for them to run properly. Two of the utmost imperative sources of energy in our world today come from coal and nuclear power. Still, a great deal of citizens of this world are unaware of the impacts of nuclear power whether it be positive or negative due to the fact that nuclear power has not existed as long as coal power has. However, as nuclear power becomes a major resource of energy, we as citizens must determine which is more fitting for not only us, but our environment. As this report continues on, you will come to find the history of each of these resources along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Concluded from this research was the concept that nuclear power is worthier for America as a whole. Included below are the specific points as to why nuclear power is far superior for American citizens and our environment. However, the main notion to be taken from this report is the view that we need to become further educated on the energy resources present in this world and be able to determine how we can become more efficient and contribute less to climate change in the long run.

Preview of the Thesis & Main Points: For these reasons, the United States government should slowly disintegrate the fossil fuel powered plants and move to nuclear energy.

Despite the bargain-basement prices, many electric utilities continued to reduce their reliance on oil in order to comply better with the 1994 Federal Clean-Air Laws. Such utilities, along with certain other industries, are capable of switching fuels. But, last year, the companies tended to stick with natural gas, which burns cleaner, even when oil would have been cheaper.

Pollution is another topic with both pros and cons. Fossil fuels release harmful pollutants into the air such as carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Nuclear power does not release any of those toxins into the atmosphere. However, a pollution problem with nuclear energy is thermal pollution, where a plant’s “hot effluents” are put into a nearby body of water, and raise the temperature by a small amount but enough to cause a disturbance in the ecosystem of the lake or reservoir. Nevertheless, this could easily be solved by cooling the effluents before releasing them into the water. The other problem facing nuclear energy is waste disposal. Nuclear waste is radioactive and very dangerous. Therefore, it must be kept buried and sealed up for a long period of time until the radioactivity dies [Plasma-Material]. One positive fact about nuclear energy that is not disputed is its abundance.

Energy is the ability for something to do work, create heat, or emit light. By this definition, energy can be anything from a sandwich to uranium. However, for the sake of simplification, this essay will focus on the United States’ consumption of fossil fuels (oil, coal, and gas), which constitute eighty-six percent of American energy (Lehrman 2). That is a lot of energy, however it becomes an even larger amount when taken into consideration that even though America accounts for only five

On October 24th, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said, "Climate Change is real! Climate Change is caused by human activity! Climate Change is affecting all parts of the world.” Sanders speaks about the disruption of ecosystems, the dying of species, and the destruction of earth’s atmosphere. The creation of increased greenhouse gases caused by heavy reliance on fossil fuel energy has disrupted Earth’s equilibrium. Sanders calls for alternative energy in America; hailing countries that have transformed their fossil fuel dependency. Nuclear power is a relevant factor in alternative energy for policy-makers. In the 1950’s, anticipation for nuclear energy was very high, people thought that new advancements in nuclear energy would make electricity free. Nuclear power was successfully implemented for commercial use in 1954 Russia. Since then a total of 438 nuclear reactors were created around the world, including the United States, with 67 still under construction. Nuclear power support has always waned throughout the years, reaching high points of investment when oil prices skyrocketed in the 1970’s. Nuclear power is praised for its efficiency and minimal environmental impacts, however common misconceptions about the danger of nuclear power/power plants, discredit nuclear energy as a better alternative to fossil fuels.

There is no need for the production and manufacturing of energy in the energy industry and the economy. The Convention on the Elimination of Natural Disasters, Oil and Gas Energy and energy, energy, energy, energy, energy, energy, energy and energy. We offer a wide array of investment opportunities for our customers in the world of energy, as well as generators, and we are also expanding the production of air conditioners.

As a whole, reliance on fossil fuels contributes to climate change, which will lead to disastrous consequences in the future. One of the many changes that can be made is to use cleaner sources of energy, of which nuclear is one of them.